Dismissed

The New India Assurance Company v. Juhi Kumari and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Dec 2024FAO/988/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company appeal against MACT Sonipat award, filed with delay of 118 days. Court found no cogent reasons for condonation and rejected contributory negligence argument since the Tralla driver did not testify and no evidence showed the parked vehicle was properly marked. Appeal dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

The New India Assurance Company Vs Juhi… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

123 FAO-988-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 05.12.2024

¶3

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. .... Appellant

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

JUHI KUMARI AND ORS .... Respondents

¶6

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶7

Present : Mr. Parunjeet Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

¶8

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company aggrieved by the award dated 19.07.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The present appeal has been filed along with an application being CM-3882-CII-2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 118 days in filing the appeal. The application itself is totally bereft of any details or any cogent reasons as to why a delay of 118 days had occurred in filing the appeal. On merits, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would contend that it was a case of contributory negligence as the deceased hit his Canter bearing registration No.HR-69-C9226 into the Tralla bearing registration No.HR-67-C-8983 which was parked on the road. It is further the contention that there was no eyewitness and since the Canter had hit the Tralla, it was a clear case of a contributory negligence.

¶9

AMAN JAIN 2024.12.09 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶10

123 FAO-988-2024 (O&M) -2-

¶11

Heard.

¶12

In the present case the appeal itself had been filed along with an application for condonation of delay of 118 days for which delay no cogent reasons are forthcoming. On merits, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that it was a clear case of contributory negligence deserves to be rejected. The facts as culled out by the Tribunal are that the claimants preferred the claim petition asserting therein that on 12.02.2022 at about 6:00 am while the deceased was driving his Canter bearing registration No.HR-69-C-9226 at a moderate speed and was observing all the traffic rules, when he reached near Hasanpur Flyover turn, GT Road, Sonipat a Tralla bearing registration No.HR-67-C-8983 was parked on the road without any parking lights, indicators, reflectors or safety measures in the dark. The deceased applied emergency brakes to avoid the collision, however, he could not succeed due to which the Canter struck against the Tralla. FIR No.63 dated 12.02.2022 under Sections 283 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Murthal, Sonipat. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that it was a case of contributory negligence cannot be accepted on the ground that the driver of the Tralla, who would have been the best person to depose as to whether the Tralla was parked properly, chose not to step into the witness box. It is not the case of the appellant-Insurance Company that in early February at 6:00 am it was broad day light. No evidence has been led by the appellant-Insurance Company to even remotely suggest that Tralla was parked in a proper manner. Though the case put forward by the appellant-Insurance

¶13

AMAN JAIN 2024.12.09 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶14

123 FAO-988-2024 (O&M)

¶15

-3-

¶16

Company was that the vehicle had broken down and that the parking lights, indicators and reflectors had been switched on, however, there was no mechanical report which was placed on the record to suggest that the vehicle had broken down. Infact, no evidence was led by the appellant-Insurance Company even qua the fact that the reflectors and parking signals were switched on. In the absence of any such evidence, no fault can be found with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal concerned. Even on the question of limitation there is no cogent reason coming forward for the delay in filing the appeal.

¶17

In view of the above, I find no merit in the present appeal. The appeal, being devoid of any merit as well as on the ground of limitation, is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶18

(ALKA SARIN)

¶19

05.12.2024 (ALKA SARIN) Aman Jain JUDGE

¶20

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶21

AMAN JAIN 2024.12.09 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

The New India Assurance Company v. Juhi Kumari and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The New India Assurance Company v. Juhi Kumari and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kumar and Ors. Vs Padam Singh and Ors.

M/S Omaxe Housing and Development Limited Vs Hari Singh and Others

Ram Kumar Malik and Ors. Vs Nar Singh Since Deceased Thr Lrs and Anr.

M/S Nirmal Hospital, Karnal Thr. Ram Gopal Vs Devi Khanal & Ors.

Gurdev Singh & Anr. Vs Balbir Singh & Anr.

Ravinder Kumar and Another Vs Sahab Singh and Others